The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

No - but it seems the irony of name of the writer and how they actually write seems be lost on you.

In today's world I can find a hundred threads, forums, comments that contradicts many parts of his write up. People hear what they want to heard.

WPE

Holy shit Reef, you make absolutely no sense at all! Who cares how many opinions you can find on the Internet.

Why not try this: find some FACTS that contradict the write-up. Engage and win a debate about it. If people still refuse to change their mind, then you're entitled to say that "people hear what they want to be heard (sic)".

But ending the practice of separating families still faces legal and practical obstacles. A federal judge could refuse to give the Trump administration the authority it wants to hold families in custody for more than 20 days, which is the current limit because of a 1997 court order.

The plan would keep families together in federal custody while awaiting prosecution for illegal border crossings, potentially violating a 1997 court settlement limiting the duration of child detentions.

It takes much more than 20 days to prosecute the parents.

So again I ask "What happens after 20 days?"

Congress has needed to fix this for decades and keeps failing to do so...

No - but it seems the irony of name of the writer and how they actually write seems be lost on you.

In today's world I can find a hundred threads, forums, comments that contradicts many parts of his write up. People hear what they want to heard.

WPE

Holy shit Reef, you make absolutely no sense at all! Who cares how many opinions you can find on the Internet.

Why not try this: find some FACTS that contradict the write-up. Engage and win a debate about it. If people still refuse to change their mind, then you're entitled to say that "people hear what they want to be heard (sic)".

But I reckon instead you'll continue with your defeatist mumbo-jumbo.

Why? It is another opinion.

WHAT I was trying to say, maybe you do not comprehend this part was the fact about the authors name BUT he/she then goes on to give a biased opinion.

I am not even saying it is right or wrong but if you want to state facts then keep it that way.